Synopsis: an incredibly basic criticism of common fallacies held against capitalism.

A regretful and seemingly perpetual feature of human nature is this disease of human-centric absolutism, a contagious fever which gradually creeps up on us and we become spasmodic, though we rarely notice, reacting at every whiff of heresy with a veneer of glazed eyes under which lie thick layers of al-fresco fury. First, we imagine there are ‘answers’ created by a benevolent Nature. Second, we assume there is an Ultimate Answer. Our final and most grievous error is to believe we have that answer.

One command, one joy, one desire,
One curse, one weight, one measure
One King, one God, one Law. William Blake
Yes, perhaps I am hypocritical, and perhaps a little bit simple. I desire that everyone should live their life as they see fit, except that they would impose with violence upon others; I am intolerant of intolerance. For this reason I will never support socialism, theocracy, nationalism or any other type of collectivist system. I am a free-market advocate and I have no guilt. My system is no-system, my answer is that I have none. I am happy to be a hypocrite.

Hypocrite. Meaning not acting in the ‘same’ manner flowing from the error in ‘equality.’ No two situations are ever the same, to act in the ‘same’ manner is an impossibility, and to try to can be dangerous for it is irrational. That many socialists believe, and it is a belief, in ‘equality’ perhaps explains why ‘hypocrite’ is a common accusation, and especially it seems with regards the ‘cold’ war, against those who like myself are/were pragmatists of the political right. Blake once questioned:

Why is one law given to the lion & the patient Ox?
Some invoke ‘freedom’ and ‘justice,’ whilst they attempt so vehemently to exclude others from their vision of the future.

Too frequently one finds capitalists are depicted as depraved self-centered slave-masters, capitalism the system that has raised the wealth and the liberty of the poorest more than any other, depicted as oppression and the exploitation of slavery. How common it is to see capitalists depicted as pigs or Nazis.

I would like to describe what it is a capitalist does.

Kimberly sees Jacob near a patch of Francis' land. Kimberly knows Jacob is a good farmer and suggests the land would be suitable for producing corn. An estimate is reached that an average harvest would sell for about $500. Francis and Jacob however are unwilling to invest their land and labor for an uncertain amount of future consumption, for the crop will be harvested and sold at market one year in the future. Francis might instead use the land to graze cattle and receive a steady return, Jacob has an alternate and reliable source of income. But Kimberly invests $400; offering to pay Francis $200 and Jacob $200 now [present goods] in exchange for the future goods they produce, she aims to sell the product hopefully for $500, receiving $100 for her investment. The $100 is Kimberly's fee for providing present goods in exchange for future goods, it is the return of the capitalist. Naturally, due to a limited life-span, we all prefer present goods to future goods - we prefer consumption in the present to some time in the future. Producing goods always requires investment - the tying-down of wealth over a period of time. Kimberly would prefer $400 now than $400 one year in the future. $100/$400=25% p.a. is the rate of interest. It is often greatly overestimated; the power capitalists wield over the market, and; their ownership of consumable wealth. Production capital is valued in terms of the goods it can produce [a value which depends upon the tastes of consumers]... Kimberly cannot eat the soil or unripe corn. The wealth a capitalist holds in investment is non-disposable. The final consumption goods, 1000 cobs of corn, are not of much use to Kimberly either as personal consumption. Francis and Jacob shake hands with Kimberly and they proceed as arranged.

So often we hear the word ‘exploitation.’ But how much is this exploitation in real terms? The rate of interest in a typical capitalist society is 5% p.a. So, for a product requiring $100 of investment and taking one year to produce:

$100 of present goods goes to the owners of labor and land.

$105 of future goods goes to consumers.

$5 of future goods goes to capitalists.

Let me illustrate another example.

Mikhail asks if he may borrow Dan's car for one day on condition he returns the car with a full tank and gives it a clean. Dan, who was going to use the car to go to the beach, agrees to Mikhail's suggestion.

That, apparently, is also ‘bad.’

One more example.

Cortez chooses to spend one year in a Buddhist monastery. No one is forced to join and no one is prevented from leaving, but a condition of membership is that the instructions of the abbot, master, and senior monks are obeyed.

I have heard from anarcho-socialists, who claim more to represent individual freedom, the desire to abolish all forms of hierarchical organization. “You may organize your selves in any way we approve of.”

Permit me to ramble on a bit.

A persistent claim made against capitalism, exemplified in the title of George Reitzer's “The McDonaldisation of Society,” is that capitalism leads to some drab standardization of life with a homogeneity of global proportions.

I live in a small unfashionable city in an unfashionable part of my capitalist nation. Yet if I were to go to a restaurant I would have a choice between, not just traditional cuisine, but Indian, Chinese, Mexican, Italian, Texan, Nepalese, national Medieval, Peking, Spanish, Cantonese, Malaysian, Arabian, Iranian, French, Bengal, Bangladeshi, Thai, sandwich bars, and yes, burger joints. If on the other hand I decide to cook for myself a trip to my local supermarket will reveal fresh produce at all times of the year, and foods from across the globe which with a trip to my local bookstore [or the internet] will allow me to cook [approximately] most of the above cuisine as well as many other styles. In terms of clothing, music, books, electronics, or almost any other consumer good there is more choice available than at any time in the past. And why pick on McDonalds? Because it is an American company? There are many competing burger joints where I live: some international, some national, some unique to my city.

It is sad and strange that the symbol chosen by many to vent their anger upon, is a company whose owners and workers earn a living by providing people with inexpensive, and convenient food.

Perhaps George Reitzer is not aware of the “Big Red Machine,” the all-conquering five-member ice hockey team of the 1980s USSR. One reason why they were so damn good is that they were forced to train, four times per day over three hundred days per year, so that the communist party could rejoice at their beating the US team.

In perestroika the members Larionov and Fetisov obtained freedom for themselves and the others, moving to the US where they continued to play. When Mikhail Tatarinov emigrated to the US to play for the Washington Capitals, the team first met him and took him on a tour. When they went into a grocery store, he was so amazed at the amount of choice he believed it to be US propaganda!

The term “laissez-faire” allegedly originated when a politician asked a citizen how he could best help him, and the citizen responded “laissez nous faire,” let us be.

What do anti-capitalists really mean by a standardization of life? Before there was much free-trade, say before 1850, it was the case in most cultures that by and large within one nation people wore similar clothes and ate similar foods and read similar books and appreciated similar music and similar sports and similar art and held similar beliefs. To differ substantially was both physically difficult except for wealthy aristocracy, and actively discouraged. Hence between nations there were large observable differences in cultures. Is this perhaps what anti-capitalists hanker after, due to a militaristic appeal of conformity and the authoritarian power structure? Cultures today, thanks to capitalism and individualism are becoming more uniformly non-uniform. People like Mr Reitzer see this as death of culture, because as socialists they perceive words/categories as something real out-there. Whereas in reality ‘culture‘ simply refers to the practices of individuals. I live in a capitalist nation. I am a Buddhist though not by birth, Buddhism had not been heard of let alone practiced in my country before around 1830. Upon a table in front of me are several metal casts of the Buddha, non-expensive and easily obtainable within my nation. There is an image of Guan Yin [a Buddhist/Taoist deity,] originally printed in China upon silk, downloaded from a web server located in Hawaii, and printed using an inkjet in my home. By my feet is a hi-fi system, on which I play music from around the world. Upon the walls of my home hang rugs made in Morocco. When some claim capitalism reduces choice, perhaps they mean choice itself does not appeal to their taste. When some claim they want culture, it seems they intend to remove individual choice and limit culture.

Much complaint against the ‘ills’ of capitalism results from projection, if people lack personal spiritual fulfillment they blame it on capitalism [which affords us more spiritual avenues than ever before] - and hey, if others choose a life without religion that is, and should be, their choice! And if a people lack social skills they blame it on the ‘anonymity and alienation’ of capitalist life [maybe social skills have not improved apace with changing needs of a wealthier society - but I prefer this to a future filled with one village, one field, one ox, and a lifetime of tilling thank you.]

Socialists bemoan the state of ‘poverty’ in their abundantly wealthy capitalist nations (whilst supporting socialist governments under which there is mass poverty) then rally against the most visible expression of the very wealth of their ‘poor’ - mass entertainment popular culture - pop music, pulp fiction, magazines, hollywood dross, games consoles, television. There is not less ‘fine art’ in modern capitalist times, just more ‘popular art’, much of which is thoughtful and entertaining - a democratization of culture resulting from capitalist wealth, affording the ‘poor’ access to production and consumption.

One final accusation, and perhaps the most dull made against capitalism - is that capitalist societies are ‘competetive’ rather than ‘cooperative,’ despite that markets for private property, and economic relations by contract, are founded upon free cooperation. Giving wealth as a gift is not cooperation. Given the existence of charitable organizations, what then in a capitalist society allegedly stops people from being ‘philanthropic?’ In a socialist economy, what one produces and what one consumes and how much one does of each, are set by government diktat, where one is intimidate with violence if one should attemp to express ownership of one's body, mind, time, energy, talents, and products of labor - replacing free cooperation with force and intimidation. Competition is only one part of the capitalist process, however it is highly beneficial - it drives the creation of wealth. ‘Profit motive’ is again much maligned - there is profit motive behind every human action - if one does something for the ‘benefit’ of another [hopefully with their permission] - then there is profit in living in a ‘better’ world, in perhaps gaining friendship, in perhaps feeling good about oneself. Money only enters into consideration when there are items to be exchanged - money is not wealth.

Let me tell you a story about Antoine who works at McDonalds, frying fries. Antoine is a fictional character, but there are real people like him in what socialists might call my exploitative capitalist nation. This is the quality of life his wage affords him:

Antoine lives with three other people, they rent a house containig a kitchen, bathroom, dining room, garden, and three bedrooms. The dimensions of Antoine's room are three meters by five meters. House facilities include running hot and cold water, electricity, sewerage, and heating. Antoine owns a desk, chairs, bed, and comfortable sprung mattress. Antoine owns a selection of fashionable clothing suitable for summer, spring/autumn, and winter, enough for a daily change. When Antoine needs his clothes cleaned he bundles them in a machine that does all the work for him. Should Antoine feel unwell he has 24 hour access to a doctor. Should the doctor find something seriously wrong, Antoine has access to the most advanced medical techniques available: MRI, PET, key-hole and laser surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy. However Antoine likes to keep healthy and eats three full meals per day, one of which is a meat/fish dish, and plenty of fresh fruit and vegetables at all times of the year. Antoine has never experienced hunger. Antoine enjoys exercise and goes jogging in a track suit and light comfortable sports trainers, although he lives in an industrial city air pollution is ever decreasing and at the lowest point since the beginning of industrialization. Antoine, in short, has a pretty comfortable life free from distress, pain, physical discomfort, and fear. If he were to leave his job he has unemployment insurance. He does not smoke or drink because he does not feel the need to, although he is constantly being told he is ‘poor’ and ‘oppressed.’ Antoine is an educated man, and has used his wealth to obtain some two hundred books over the previous year. He is aware that owning this small library is in itself unusual in a historical light, that he is living way beyond the means of a middle-income person only fifty years ago. Antoine decides to take one week of paid holiday out of his entitlement of four per year [50 years previously only 1% of manual workers surveyed across all income-levels received four weeks paid holiday, 90% received less than two weeks,] and he has decided to spend his saved earnings from the past year. This is what Antoine buys: a brand new 24 inch color television, a brand new computer with a 2 Ghz processor and 20 Gb hard drive, a years supply of 24 hour internet connection, and a week of holiday on the sunny beaches of Spain including travel accommodation, living and recreational expenses.

All his employer asks of Antoine is that he flips burgers. And this is meant to be oppression? To call capitalism slavery is to degrade the suffering of real slavery past and present, and to denigrate the humanity of decent people.

Let us meet Antoine again, sunning himself on a golden Spanish beach. Antoine shifts his gaze from the blue-grey of the Mediterranean over painfully bright sands to the person nearest. When Antoine sees a stranger he likes to guess where the stranger comes from, what he/she does for a living, their social activities, their reasons for being in this location at this particular time. The stranger strikes Antoine as being a director of a large company, maybe a CEO. Antoine imagines she drives a luxury car and owns a studio-flat in a city and a country-house. Probably she is much wealthier than he is. Antoine does not begrudge her this wealth. To get to where she is perhaps she devoted herself to studies for many years, starting out on a small income and working herself up by proving to be good at what she does. Probably she has excellent organizational abilities, an ability to work with all kinds of people, bringing them together, resolving disputes, promoting cooperation. She probably works long hours in a high-pressure environment. And these skills of hers, maybe they are employed in the airline business, maybe they improved productivity allowing Antoine to afford his flight. Antoine recalls that only fifty years ago air travel was the exclusive preserve of a lucky few. Maybe she was lucky in being born to wealthier parents, affording her a better education. Antoine is a bit of an anti-philosopher. He does not begrudge luck. ‘Luck happens’ is his motto. Antoine knows his history and his economics and considers himself lucky to be born in a modern capitalist nation. Antoine figures that people need both executives and people doing his job, and that it is Antoine's kamma, not meaning as is commonly misinterpreted causality mixed in with God i.e. ‘bad kamma’ or punishment, but it is ‘what he does.’ All he asks is that he is allowed to do the best he can with what he has been given. If Antoine wanted to he could quite easily obtain double what he is earning, or get a ‘career job’ with better chances for promotion, most people working at the burger joint are immigrants in their first job. But a career is not for everyone and Antoine likes meeting people from different nations and finding out their desires and where they came from and why they came to be here.

Is my story is a little rose-tinted? Perhaps, but the wealth Antoine earns is what someone working in McDonalds in my nation does earn.

Life is mostly only as good or bad as your outlook.

Here is a link to a brief description of the wealth of those below the US ‘poverty line’ [scroll down about half way.]